The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Yale Experiment: The Way to Make Americans More Liberal on Immigration Is to Have Them Fantasize That All Will be Okey-Dokey
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post:

At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. The results say a lot about our political divisions.

By John Bargh November 22, 2017

John Bargh is a professor of social psychology at Yale University and the author of “Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do”

… In a new study to appear in a forthcoming issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology, my colleagues Jaime Napier, Julie Huang and Andy Vonasch and I asked 300 U.S. residents in an online survey their opinions on several contemporary issues such as gay rights, abortion, feminism and immigration, as well as social change in general. The group was two-thirds female, about three-quarters white, with an average age of 35. Thirty-percent of the participants self-identified as Republican, and the rest as Democrat.

But before they answered the survey questions, we had them engage in an intense imagination exercise. They were asked to close their eyes and richly imagine being visited by a genie who granted them a superpower. For half of our participants, this superpower was to be able to fly, under one’s own power. For the other half, it was to be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm.

If they had just imagined being able to fly, their responses to the social attitude survey showed the usual clear difference between Republicans and Democrats — the former endorsed more conservative positions on social issues and were also more resistant to social change in general.

But if they had instead just imagined being completely physically safe, the Republicans became significantly more liberal — their positions on social attitudes were much more like the Democratic respondents. And on the issue of social change in general, the Republicans’ attitudes were now indistinguishable from the Democrats. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.

Indeed.

 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. professor of social psychology? LOL. We all know how “replicable” those studies are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cynthia curran
    This article by Sailer is silly. The left has already lost on immigration since wages for low skilled jobs are slightly increasing and folks in Orange County have went against Brown on protecting illegal immigrants that committed crimes. Basically, the left has lost on immigration and won somewhat on the gun issue since they used mess demonstrations on to get their way. Also, high income left wing cities have very high murder rates which works against the left in the long term. The left is going to use anti-trust laws against the tech giants which means places like San Jose, San Francisco, and Seattle will laid off thousands of workers. This money around for pro-immigration propaganda. The left is out in the next decade because they are basically with the gun law demonstrations going back to their old tricks that don't worked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous[527] • Disclaimer says:

    …As opposed to looking at reality and being a concerned Conservative. Liberals do like to live in fantasies, sounds about right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    …As opposed to looking at reality and being a concerned Conservative. Liberals do like to live in fantasies, sounds about right.
     
    This is absolutely the case.

    Jonathan Haidt has done this work which basically shows that conservatives are better balanced across a bunch of his "moral foundations" while progressives have pretty much turned off all but the "this is unfair!" and "they'd be hurt by that!" ones.

    But i think it goes beyond this. Beyond conservatives--actually ones not the beltway ones--wanting to actually conserve stuff, what i see is that conservatives are simply more *realistic* about the world. Might not have been true in some earlier times, but these days the conservative is the skeptical realist.

    One thing that made me "conservative" in the political sense, is that progressives (liberal is the wrong world) always seem to "get the incentives wrong". Not occasionally but really pretty much always get them wrong. Their modus operandi is to create some policy or spend some money on some program to ameliorate some "unfairness" or prevent someone from being "hurt". But they seem positively incapable of thinking whether the policy's long term consequences are positive. In many cases it's obvious to the logical thinker than even their policy's short term consequences will be negative. The incentives it produces are obviously negative.

    Beyond my natural inclinations, i'm just too much of logical thinking to be "progressive". Doing stupid stuff in order to "be nice" simply doesn't appeal to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anonymous[527] • Disclaimer says:

    Worked out well for the Swedish liberals who waved in scores of ‘refugees’ with Welcome signs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: "Consider the ladies aboard the Titanic who waved off the dessert cart." And frankly there are more than one parallel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    It’s a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I have never seen a video of him. He seems to have been a very bright, gracious and honorable man, much unlike the cowardly, dishonorable Bill Buckley. Thank you for this.
    , @Gracebear
    Such a moving interview with the wonderful Joe Sobran, who came to such a tragic end. We miss him and his clarity of thought, and his courage. What a huge loss.
    , @PiltdownMan
    An intelligent and clearly spoken man, whose sincerity comes through. I looked up both Joe Sobran and Brian Lamb, and curiously, Sobran was Lamb's junior by only four years. Lamb looks almost a generation older in that video.
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    Buckley's name should only ever be pronounced Cuckley. Speaking of Cuckley and the zionist lobby, Gore Vidal wrote some great essays taking on the neocon crowd and easily and amusingly got the best of them.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.
     
    I see it as more of a time capsule, Mr. Gryce.

    It was amazing how calm and erudite the callers were, from all over, New Mexico, Mississippi, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon (then by some point a Lebanese immigrant, Christian, guy, living in Gainsville, Florida, started off on the politics and I tuned out at that point thinking "why do I need to hear from this guy?" The rest were Americans and those are the people I wanted to hear from.)

    If you listen at just after 29 minutes in, you can hear the Portland guy make an even better explanation of the term "ad hominem" then Mr. Sobran did. Again, the people were very erudite.(Maybe non-erudite people back then felt they shouldn't be the ones to call into these shows.). Oh, they were going to talk about the new Justice Scalia in an upcoming show - man, this was 1986!

    Thanks for putting this time capsule up here. I guess youtube has lots of time capsules, if you have time for them.
    , @schnellandine
    Longtime fan of print Sobran, so why had I not looked for videos? Glad you did. Enjoyed that one, and also many others on same channel. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. So I guess we can chalk up being conservative to simply being irrationally fearful of Diversity, because Science. So now, because Science, we can officially say conservatives are suffering from a mental disorder–pathological xenophobia, I suspect–and thus must be cured or otherwise institutionalized.

    It’s the only way to be sure. Utopia awaits!

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Conservatives need more Ned Flandersitis.
    , @Rod1963
    Yale's English department was the first American university to embrace that toxic post-modernist Derrida.

    If they were stupid enought to be impressed with his mental masturbation and all around toxic nonsense. It stands to reason the doyens of Yale will embrace and accept anything and they have.

    That said, it's this sort of insanity that just reaffirms what people like Jordan Peterson have stated that the university system is either dead or dying and it's certainly not worth attending anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Being that safe must feel like……… Having no skin in the Game, which leads to ?????

    Read NNT’s latest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. For an undisclosed number of our participants, that superpower meant the unexplained Abrams-esque disappearance of one group of people (denoted “B”), the complete subjugation of another with thralls not considered a violation of monogamy (“J”), the sorting of a third with the least qualified two thirds sent back to their ancestral lands (“H”), the elevation of a fourth to equal status in empathy and creativity but lacking this people-organizing power (“A”), Korean-style internet, the reorganization of mass media, and the inauguration of a bloody purge of our academic, bureaucratic and legal institutions (Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe was kept alive and in position as a reminder).
    For seven it was unlimited breadsticks (always warm, you can control cheesiness and garlicity, but you cannot sell them for profit).
    And at least three opted for the Goat Tower. They were removed from the study.

    Read More
    • LOL: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Sam Malone
    Are you ok, J?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Did they check to see if the invulnerable-to-harm group already happened to hold more liberal opinions? At least 30-35% of Republicans hold “liberal” opinions on those issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. anon[851] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:
    What happens when they instead imagine a gang of Jewish Nazi stormtrooper Hitler Jugend?


    If it’s okay for Jews to LARP as Nazis, and use “special salutes” (what does that mean? Bellamy salutes?) why isn’t it okay for the Richard Spencer crowd?

    They “bombed collections of Arab civilians in response to any attack of any kind on any Palestinian Jews.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @Matthew Kelly
    So I guess we can chalk up being conservative to simply being irrationally fearful of Diversity, because Science. So now, because Science, we can officially say conservatives are suffering from a mental disorder--pathological xenophobia, I suspect--and thus must be cured or otherwise institutionalized.

    It's the only way to be sure. Utopia awaits!

    Conservatives need more Ned Flandersitis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. News Flash: Ivy League researchers insulated from the rest of the world prove that people who feel insulated from the rest of the world think like Ivy League researchers.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. anon[467] • Disclaimer says:

    This is why it makes sense that liberal politicians intuitively portray danger as manageable — recall FDR’s famous Great Depression era reassurance of “nothing to fear but fear itself,” echoed decades later in Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address — and why President Trump and other Republican politicians are instead likely to emphasize the dangers of terrorism and immigration, relying on fear as a motivator to gain votes.

    It’s weird that he didn’t mention anything about people using fear of “assault rifles” or mass shootings in schools as a motivator to get votes.

    Or using fears of being shot by a cop while you were just walking down the street as a motivator to get votes.

    Or, for that matter, using fears about Donald Trump turning into Literal Hitler and throwing gays and illegals and journalists into concentration camps as a motivator to get votes.

    Maybe it’s because those fears turned out to be totally reasonable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    To push this analysis a little bit further...

    I don't remember an election, or even a time, when there has been so much blatant fear-mongering on the liberal side. Fear of hate crimes, fear of being run over a car when you were innocently blocking traffic, fear of an impending Nazi takeover.

    If you think about it, the difference between liberals and conservatives could just be that liberals are afraid of white things, while conservatives are afraid of non-white things.

    Welp. Only one way to settle which group is right. Which group is more likely to commit actual acts of violence? Whites or non-whites? Are Muslim immigrants or white Europeans more likely to cause problems to the European populace?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. This seems awfully silly. Why not ask another group to imagine they’re stuck in Eastern Ghouta or something? Or, more mundanely, imagine you’re just laid off. Presto, instant Republicans!

    It’d be about as trite and meaningless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    The liberal professor Brett Weinstein of Evergreen college explained how nice the right was to him after he and his wife were chased off campus by the left. So I think you are onto something with getting laid off. Losing a job shakes the very foundation of your daily life even more than a mugging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Mugging doesn't do the trick anymore, as Matt Yglesias demonstrated. In fact, getting assaulted by one of their favorite minorities provides a valuable opportunity for the liberal to prove his bona fides: "I got brutally beaten by blacks and you know what? I still love black people more than white right-wingers, so there!"
    , @J.Ross
    I don't remember the researchers' names but two women came on NPR back before or at the beginning of the Artificial Migrant Crisis with the williamshatnering revelation that warmness to new arrivals cooled after hearing accurate population numbers (in other words, white liberals are okay with migrants because they're assuming it's seventy years ago, and there's plenty of whites and just not that many Mestizos around). This conclusion was discussed in terms of reconsidering how the news presented population figures, not, y'know, people having an outdated sense of their numbers, and nominally popular policies being built on a lie.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The serious answer is to increase fear, for better or worse. Even fear of disease seems to increase conservative attitudes.
    , @David
    Cocks may become capons but not capons cocks.
    , @Forbes

    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?
     
    Reality seems to work. Age and experience usually does it. People tend to be most conservative with what they best know. No imagination necessary, really.

    Only a lefty could conjure up an experiment utilizing test subjects' fantasy and imagination, and consider the results as proof of some hypothesis. Life is hard, life is unfair. Once you suspend reality, anything is possible experimentally.

    This appears proof, though, of confirmation bias, using incomplete information to confirm one's belief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. The recent Churchill movie Darkest Hour illustrates liberals’ (Vader voice) *lack of vision.*

    Chamberlain and lesser known appeaser Halifax are willing to preemptively surrender to Germany to avoid war, and at first the King seems inclined to agree. Finally there’s a scene were he says, in a very British elite way, “Recently, I find myself feeling very . . . angry.” Then he gives Churchill his private support and the rest is history.

    Liberals will cause no end of mischief with their pollyannaism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Chamberlain and lesser known appeaser Halifax are willing to preemptively surrender to Germany

     

    "We will never give up our Empire!"
    , @Lurker
    Of course there was no need to 'surrender' to Germany since British territorial integrity was not in doubt at the time Churchill came to power and of course never seriously in question afterwards either.

    Whatever Churchill's reasons for continuing the war, they were not about securing Britain or the Empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. OK, mostly women. Women’s default position to threat is surrender. Aka “F- me don’t kill me.” Attractive young women are generally valuable booty for aggressive invader men, and often the primary motivation as seems to be the case for the Islamic Immavaders.

    I’d imagine a different set of results among White men. More Conan the Barbarian, less Conan O’Brien the Cuckoldian.

    Secondly, how can very realistic appraisals of threats be fantasized away by White men? White women I agree, will fantasize away that their nightly rapist/pimps/abusers of vibrancy are really just swell dominant sexy vampires in disguise, that’s a particular trait of women worldwide and one in which they are very good at. In some ways it is absolutely vital that women only see the good not the bad in their kids otherwise few would survive to adulthood.

    Threat assessment and planning in response is hard-wired into men. All men of all races, even if cuckoldian programming inhibits open reaction it is there and expressed in avoidance wherever possible.

    The more vibrancy is packed into the West, becoming inescapable, the more Western Society resembles a Frontier where the Cavalry is always on the side of the Indians and always riding to their rescue during an attack on Whites. Thus flight will invariably turn to fight.

    I think that time is now, with fighting through legal action nationwide — a series of networked affiliates where young White male lawyers who passed the bar exam but are baristas or taxi drivers as the big law firms scoop up the diverse, are given minimal stipends and assistance in filing lawsuits against targets big and small who discriminate against White males and White females. Keeping most of their fees but kicking back nationally to the master program which distributes funds and provides legal assistance in big cases. Call it a swarming distributed legal attack of mosquitoes — the aim not being necessarily to win but to be such a nuisance that the worst of anti-White discrimination is bypassed to avoid the mosquito swarm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @inertial
    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    Mugging doesn’t do the trick anymore, as Matt Yglesias demonstrated. In fact, getting assaulted by one of their favorite minorities provides a valuable opportunity for the liberal to prove his bona fides: “I got brutally beaten by blacks and you know what? I still love black people more than white right-wingers, so there!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    (With apologies to Irving Kristol)

    Conservative is a liberal who had been mugged by reality. An SJW is a liberal who had been mugged by reality and didn't press charges.
    , @stillCARealist
    It's sad, but you're right. A left-wing friend in college was robbed at gunpoint by a black thug and he blamed it on society. Didn't even report it to the police.
    , @Kylie
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/02/books.southafrica
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Now imagine the Muslim migrants are all genies granting infinite wishes. Abracadabra, congratulations, you’ve purged yourself of all crimethink.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter’s CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don’t need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain, or other sundry topics that might worry your pretty little head?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?
    , @Samuel Skinner
    That already happened. In 1946. The New York Times declared it would no longer be publishing the race of criminals unless 'relevant'.
    , @Forbes
    Well, the lapdog, ankle-biting media needs its clicks and eyeballs, and they're doing it by reporting every little local gun crime and any other outrage used to underwrite The Narrative. Whether it's the US web-based version of The Daily Mail, or many other outlets, the news is out there.

    Now it's true that I don't "need to know" many of the things you mention--I ignore most of the legacy media. But the reality of MS-13 or the opiod crisis and most other realities are very much a local matter not subject to the vicissitudes of Twitter or Facebook policies.

    Meanwhile, the theory you suggest would serve to further separate the coastals from the continentals. Which doesn't strike me as good politics...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Matthew Kelly
    So I guess we can chalk up being conservative to simply being irrationally fearful of Diversity, because Science. So now, because Science, we can officially say conservatives are suffering from a mental disorder--pathological xenophobia, I suspect--and thus must be cured or otherwise institutionalized.

    It's the only way to be sure. Utopia awaits!

    Yale’s English department was the first American university to embrace that toxic post-modernist Derrida.

    If they were stupid enought to be impressed with his mental masturbation and all around toxic nonsense. It stands to reason the doyens of Yale will embrace and accept anything and they have.

    That said, it’s this sort of insanity that just reaffirms what people like Jordan Peterson have stated that the university system is either dead or dying and it’s certainly not worth attending anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. There’s a better way, thanks to science:

    A joint team of American and British scientists have discovered that powerful magnetic pulses to the brain can temporarily change people’s feelings on a variety of subjects – from their belief in God, to their attitude to immigration.

    The study, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, saw scientists use a metal coil to create strong magnetic fields around certain parts of the brain.

    The non-invasive practice is called trancranial magnetic stimulation, and has can be used to treat depression.

    However, researchers have now found that by targeting the part of the brain that deals with threats, they can temporarily change people’s beliefs and views.

    Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds
     
    So liberals are basically conservatives with disabled brains. Verified by Science at last.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. The study sounds like complete nonsense. Communist media used to underplay bad news, crimes were not publicised, bad stuff was not mentioned, utopia was promised, etc… So did that turn the people liberal or conservative? Check out how they vote in Poland or Hungary…or do a gay parade in Minsk or Riga.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @inertial
    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    I don’t remember the researchers’ names but two women came on NPR back before or at the beginning of the Artificial Migrant Crisis with the williamshatnering revelation that warmness to new arrivals cooled after hearing accurate population numbers (in other words, white liberals are okay with migrants because they’re assuming it’s seventy years ago, and there’s plenty of whites and just not that many Mestizos around). This conclusion was discussed in terms of reconsidering how the news presented population figures, not, y’know, people having an outdated sense of their numbers, and nominally popular policies being built on a lie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. anon[467] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    This is why it makes sense that liberal politicians intuitively portray danger as manageable — recall FDR’s famous Great Depression era reassurance of “nothing to fear but fear itself,” echoed decades later in Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address — and why President Trump and other Republican politicians are instead likely to emphasize the dangers of terrorism and immigration, relying on fear as a motivator to gain votes.
     
    It's weird that he didn't mention anything about people using fear of "assault rifles" or mass shootings in schools as a motivator to get votes.

    Or using fears of being shot by a cop while you were just walking down the street as a motivator to get votes.

    Or, for that matter, using fears about Donald Trump turning into Literal Hitler and throwing gays and illegals and journalists into concentration camps as a motivator to get votes.

    Maybe it's because those fears turned out to be totally reasonable.

    To push this analysis a little bit further…

    I don’t remember an election, or even a time, when there has been so much blatant fear-mongering on the liberal side. Fear of hate crimes, fear of being run over a car when you were innocently blocking traffic, fear of an impending Nazi takeover.

    If you think about it, the difference between liberals and conservatives could just be that liberals are afraid of white things, while conservatives are afraid of non-white things.

    Welp. Only one way to settle which group is right. Which group is more likely to commit actual acts of violence? Whites or non-whites? Are Muslim immigrants or white Europeans more likely to cause problems to the European populace?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    The 1970s were filled with thousands of bombings, and there was never blatant fear-mongering as today. Read Bryan Burroughs Days of Rage if you need a primer.

    Black Power groups, Puerto Rican (Hispanic) separatists, left-wing anarchists and anti-government types, including a succession of bank robberies and other heists to fund their activities. Except for the bank robberies, and bombings, it all sounds familiar--except people weren't shrieking about it from the roof tops.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Thomas
    You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter's CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don't need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain, or other sundry topics that might worry your pretty little head?

    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas

    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?
     
    It was surveillance video footage of flash-mob mass robbery suspects. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/bart-officials-withhold-crime-surveillance-tapes-for-fear-racial-stereotyping-memo-shows.html)

    In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if things like descriptions of criminal suspects or racial statistics on criminal offending or IQ are treated in the same way hydrogen bomb designs or the identity of secret agents are today: state secrets to be trusted only to those with a need to know, and not for mass consumption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. So, in other words, liberals are living in a fantasy world where they think they are invulnerable.

    Doesn’t this “researcher” see that’s the obvious logical conclusion to the study, and not that conservatives, when given an imaginary and unobtainable superpower, act more liberal?

    Logic. Not the strong suit for libs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. For half of our participants, this superpower was to be able to fly, under one’s own power. For the other half, it was to be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm.

    Both are kind of usless unless you have both. If you could fly, how long do you think you would survive until you hit something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Depends how many other people are flying around, and at what speeds. Even as a tyke, I was skeptical of Jetsons-style personal aircraft. After all, there can be no striped lanes in the air to keep everyone in place, and no traffic lights. Real aircraft, even single-propeller planes, maintain miles of distance between themselves, and that's with highly trained people behind the yoke/stick. The sky only seems vast; its practical capacity for flying vehicles is surprisingly small.

    And in California, you know all the illegals would be in line for pilots licenses.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    I have never seen a video of him. He seems to have been a very bright, gracious and honorable man, much unlike the cowardly, dishonorable Bill Buckley. Thank you for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    Here're Sobran's last thoughts on WFB Jr.:

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060530.shtml
    , @Twodees Partain
    Sobran was a national treasure. Another great columnist from those days was Alan Stang.

    https://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alanA.htm

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Uilleam Yr Alban
    The recent Churchill movie Darkest Hour illustrates liberals' (Vader voice) *lack of vision.*

    Chamberlain and lesser known appeaser Halifax are willing to preemptively surrender to Germany to avoid war, and at first the King seems inclined to agree. Finally there's a scene were he says, in a very British elite way, "Recently, I find myself feeling very . . . angry." Then he gives Churchill his private support and the rest is history.

    Liberals will cause no end of mischief with their pollyannaism.

    Chamberlain and lesser known appeaser Halifax are willing to preemptively surrender to Germany

    “We will never give up our Empire!”

    Read More
    • LOL: Uilleam Yr Alban
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.

    Huh. Those tested “conservatives” must be pretty apathetic. If granted complete invulnerability over a natural lifespan, one could be a hell of a vigilante and take out a lot of hard-target traitors one by one. Maintaining anonymity and avoiding capture would be key, of course.

    “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. “At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals”

    Because conservatism is a disease that needs to be cured. What doesn’t need to be cured: transgendserism, deafness, and blindness. Those people are just “differently abled.” But conservatism is a disease – a disease one tends to acquire the more experience one has in life.

    Just try to imagine the title of this article turned: “At Yale we conducted an experiment to turn liberals into conservatives.” Can you imagine them even daring to try? In the very, very, very off chance that they did, how would they go about it? To turn conservatives into liberals they had the subjects fantasize. To turn liberals into conservatives all they would have to do is show them 20 random (and quite factual) posts from iSteve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Is this nonsense even worth bothering to try to replicate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. “You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter’s CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don’t need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain”

    Ummm, it seems to me they’ve already decided that. I’d wager not even 5% of Americans have heard of what happened in Rotherham or Telford. 80% of those who have probably haven’t seen more than one story or news article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    What happened in Rotherham and Telford is horrible, a scandal of gigantic proportions--but it's a UK scandal, not a US scandal. The US scandal is, perhaps, of different proportions.

    The US didn't colonize countries with Muslims--or rule over populations of Muslims in Empire. Yet we're admitting Muslims, and others, who have no formal relationship or political, ethnic, or cultural bonds with the US. A different insanity, I think, better served by covering what's happening here, rather than looking across the ocean and concluding "it couldn't happen here."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    Such a moving interview with the wonderful Joe Sobran, who came to such a tragic end. We miss him and his clarity of thought, and his courage. What a huge loss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    I visited his grave site last year. Gone too soon. Oremus pro Josepho magno.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous[341] • Disclaimer says:

    Nope.

    Not, “I somewhat disagree with the interpret–” just straight up no. no to the analysis. no to the supposed data being analyzed.

    no in the sense, “lol not even close to being remotely plausible, please try harder to trick me.”

    I mean, this is straight up batshit insane stuff. Like if they told you a Yale “study” had “determined” Charles Manson turned the sky orange.

    every single thing they said is going directly into things thatdidnthappen.txt.

    i know it’s hard for some people to believe “Yale” is just straight out making up “science” but as unlikely as it seems that’s what we’ve proved over and over again.

    the only ironclad law in the social sciences is my record–my longitudinal study if you will–on “LOL added to thingsthatdidnthappen.txt”

    thingsthatdidnthappen.txt is at this point an extremely lengthy file that still contains precisely zero things that have happened in the dozen years and hundreds of items added.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Uilleam Yr Alban
    The recent Churchill movie Darkest Hour illustrates liberals' (Vader voice) *lack of vision.*

    Chamberlain and lesser known appeaser Halifax are willing to preemptively surrender to Germany to avoid war, and at first the King seems inclined to agree. Finally there's a scene were he says, in a very British elite way, "Recently, I find myself feeling very . . . angry." Then he gives Churchill his private support and the rest is history.

    Liberals will cause no end of mischief with their pollyannaism.

    Of course there was no need to ‘surrender’ to Germany since British territorial integrity was not in doubt at the time Churchill came to power and of course never seriously in question afterwards either.

    Whatever Churchill’s reasons for continuing the war, they were not about securing Britain or the Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:

    I grew up in white society in Arkansas- conservative, stable and safe. I was therefore a liberal, endorsing sensible change.
    I now live in Seattle – an unstable, fanatic society that has declared war on reason. I am therefore a conservative and believe in restoring order.
    The question isn’t whether feeling safe makes you more liberal. The question is whether our present reality justifies feeling safe. It doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This.
    (by the way, why are you defeating Unz's commenter tracking system? You're here, you should abide by the local rules)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @anon
    I grew up in white society in Arkansas- conservative, stable and safe. I was therefore a liberal, endorsing sensible change.
    I now live in Seattle - an unstable, fanatic society that has declared war on reason. I am therefore a conservative and believe in restoring order.
    The question isn't whether feeling safe makes you more liberal. The question is whether our present reality justifies feeling safe. It doesn't.

    This.
    (by the way, why are you defeating Unz’s commenter tracking system? You’re here, you should abide by the local rules)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The interesting thing is that they think this result says something about conservatives, but it actually says a hell of a lot more about liberals.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Anyone who’s ever been through the “liberal when young, conservative when old” life cycle could have told them this, of course. One of the reasons young people tend to be more liberal is that they have no idea about the dangers in the wider world.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but in just two generations these once-august institutions have turned very nearly into the opposite of all that. Now they resemble nothing so much as cushy versions of Cultural Revolution training camps, where apostates are shunned and ruined, and mind-control techniques and groupthink would rule the day–except that they’re no longer really needed.

    One thing about the Long March Through the Institutions is that the Institutions are ruined in the process. And it’s worth repeating: Every single thing worthwhile about American society is being wrecked. It’s not accidental. None of it is accidental.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Sorry, that is BS. The colleges have always been a place to learn the state creed- blank slatism came from the universities before spreading to the media. They have always been places where professors have competed to have as worthless and detached from reality views as possible to show how much better they are then the proles.

    The difference is that over time the status signaling has taken up more and more of their time and effort until now where it has displaced nearly all other activities.
    , @stillCARealist
    "Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them."

    Are we sure this is true? My guess is they went from being rich white boys' clubs to rich liberals' clubs. They've always been the rich clubs and are mostly about maintaining status. God bless any students that ever actually learned anything useful in those places.
    , @dfordoom

    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech.
     
    That might be true of American Ivy League colleges but it's not true of universities in general. The purpose of universities was originally to enforce religious orthodoxy. So modern universities do in fact fulfil the original purpose of universities.

    Freedom of speech is an anti-Christian Enlightenment concept.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @inertial
    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    The serious answer is to increase fear, for better or worse. Even fear of disease seems to increase conservative attitudes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I would say it’s realistic fear which we need to increase. As opposed to fear of a fascist dictatorship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Hippopotamusdrome


    For half of our participants, this superpower was to be able to fly, under one’s own power. For the other half, it was to be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm.

     

    Both are kind of usless unless you have both. If you could fly, how long do you think you would survive until you hit something?

    Depends how many other people are flying around, and at what speeds. Even as a tyke, I was skeptical of Jetsons-style personal aircraft. After all, there can be no striped lanes in the air to keep everyone in place, and no traffic lights. Real aircraft, even single-propeller planes, maintain miles of distance between themselves, and that’s with highly trained people behind the yoke/stick. The sky only seems vast; its practical capacity for flying vehicles is surprisingly small.

    And in California, you know all the illegals would be in line for pilots licenses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The solution is autonomous drones. Did you see the Intel 1200 drone swarm at the opening of the Winter Olympics? Each one of those drones could have been scaled up to passenger size.

    https://youtu.be/fCd6P7Ya160?t=121

    This is not CGI - this is actual film of the drone swarm (each drone carried a light).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.

    What if we did an experiment where we forced poor whites to live next to Section 8 blacks pushed out of gentrifying cities so that they lived in fear of physical harm. What would the result of that experiment be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    At best it’s an interesting question only in the sense of idle curiosity, worth one of those IgNobel prizes, not one serious scientist will ever research this. But I guess if black and white people lived together, that would create racial harmony and a wonderful multicultural utopia. Provided we punished white racists severely enough. All we have to do is to provide education.

    Now, back to how conservatives are dumb and are opposed to honest scientific inquiry.
    , @International Jew
    I guess it would increase the number who supported the right to concealed carry from 90% to 100%.

    But that's not the experiment I'd want to carry out. I'd want to put Democratic politicians into those neighborhoods. Minus their bodyguards of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous[275] • Disclaimer says:

    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that’s useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar “faces,” but please consider what’s at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you’re at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    You can have your comment history hidden.
    , @Almost Missouri
    I tend to agree even though I don't use the anonymous approach, (which I may regret one day).

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments. Ron's Rules countenanced anonymous comments so long as you did them his way, which I believe anonymous commenters did, but the rules didn't mention that after leaving a string of anonymous comments, they could be retroactively strung together in a potentially revealing way. I think that was a little deceptive, and it somewhat lowers my otherwise very high opinion of Mr. Unz.

    , @Anonymous
    Ron decided that he would concatenate people's nicks probably based on IP Addresses. He may not have figured that some addresses might have more than one person, through the magic of IPv4 address translation, and that some individuals might post from various IP Addresses from time to time, such as people that often use public wifi.

    So it appeared that certain people were having, in effect, conversations with themselves.

    Therefore some of us, such as myself decided to just go with Anonymous and certain others have decided to desist from posting entirely.
    , @International Jew
    You can thwart Ron's tracking system easily:

    1. Use incognito windows (Chrome) or private tabs (Firefox). That will defeat any cookie-based system. (Surprisingly, Ron didn't use cookies last time I checked, but he may start using them, and it's not always clear where any particular cookie on your system comes from (and you probably have thousands of them).)

    2. Comment from a mobile phone and go on 4g (ie your phone company) rather than Wifi. You'll typically get assigned a new IP address every time you reboot in the morning. (In fact, I get assigned a new IP address every time I toggle Airplane Mode.) On Android, you can check your IP address by going to Settings/AboutPhone/Status. (Dunno about iPhone.) Or use Wifi, but visit lots of different Starbucks!

    By the way, this is how you deal with getting banned by Disqus (and of course you need to get a new Disqus handle too).

    , @AnotherDad

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.
     
    I get this. I've said enough that anyone who wanted to could easily track me down and out me as an evil thinker--i.e. someone who believes their eyes. I'm retired so unless they are allowed to seize my retirement nest egg, the defenestration would be pretty minor. (They aren't going to get AnotherMom to toss me out.) But other folks may be in more perilous circumstances.

    However, if you just pick a handle for one particular thread--JoeBob427 for your comments on Chetty--that's helpful for the rest of us reading/responding to the arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @International Jew
    Depends how many other people are flying around, and at what speeds. Even as a tyke, I was skeptical of Jetsons-style personal aircraft. After all, there can be no striped lanes in the air to keep everyone in place, and no traffic lights. Real aircraft, even single-propeller planes, maintain miles of distance between themselves, and that's with highly trained people behind the yoke/stick. The sky only seems vast; its practical capacity for flying vehicles is surprisingly small.

    And in California, you know all the illegals would be in line for pilots licenses.

    The solution is autonomous drones. Did you see the Intel 1200 drone swarm at the opening of the Winter Olympics? Each one of those drones could have been scaled up to passenger size.

    This is not CGI – this is actual film of the drone swarm (each drone carried a light).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Jack D

    Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.
     
    What if we did an experiment where we forced poor whites to live next to Section 8 blacks pushed out of gentrifying cities so that they lived in fear of physical harm. What would the result of that experiment be?

    At best it’s an interesting question only in the sense of idle curiosity, worth one of those IgNobel prizes, not one serious scientist will ever research this. But I guess if black and white people lived together, that would create racial harmony and a wonderful multicultural utopia. Provided we punished white racists severely enough. All we have to do is to provide education.

    Now, back to how conservatives are dumb and are opposed to honest scientific inquiry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. There seem to be an increasing number of these kinds of “experiments” that always go in one direction: what it takes to turn conservatives into liberals, how to condition conservative views out of people, etc. I don’t think it is accidental. Academia is gearing up for a full-on campaign of treating conservatism as a mental illness. And from academia, this view will migrate into politics and eventually the Law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.

    - Imagine! (John Lennon)

    In a time, when wishful thinking was still powerful. (Grimm’s Fairy Tales).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @Daniel Chieh
    The serious answer is to increase fear, for better or worse. Even fear of disease seems to increase conservative attitudes.

    I would say it’s realistic fear which we need to increase. As opposed to fear of a fascist dictatorship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.

    - “Imagine!” (John Lennon)

    “In the old times, when wishful thinking was still helpful.” (Grimm’s Fairy Tales – The Frog King).

    Now – what do you think of Pepe, ya people of Yale?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Anonymous
    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that's useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar "faces," but please consider what's at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you're at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    You can have your comment history hidden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This would only disable the click-on-handle feature at Unz.com, wouldn't it? It would not disable a [ site:unz.com "J.Ross says:" ] search on Google.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Let’s keep things in perspective. These guys don’t claim they turned all their sample conservatives into liberals. They only turned a significant fraction, and by that they mean statistical significance, a technical term and in terms of live bodies, at their sample size, it means either 13 or 16 people, depending on their criterion for significance (p=.1 vs p=.05). That is, they started with 90 conservatives, and chipped off maybe fifteen of them, by having them imagine they were invulnerable.

    Oddly, they don’t report any numbers in this Washington Post piece. Before getting any more excited about this, I’d want to know what the number really was, and also what questions they posed exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. In the real world, I’d expect invulnerability would increase the number of conservatives, or at any rate the number of detectable conservatives.

    For example, when HR puts your department through diversity training, if you all thought your jobs were invulnerable, you might tell the diversity consultant to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and thus make a different impression than the one you make, in this real world, of cowed acquiescence.

    Similarly, if I felt invulnerable, then the impromptu break-dancers who, boombox in hand, go through my commuter train’s cars doing their act and then panhandling for money, might get a more frank appraisal from me of how much I appreciate their act.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @Jack D

    Imagining being completely safe from physical harm had done what no experiment had done before — it had turned conservatives into liberals.
     
    What if we did an experiment where we forced poor whites to live next to Section 8 blacks pushed out of gentrifying cities so that they lived in fear of physical harm. What would the result of that experiment be?

    I guess it would increase the number who supported the right to concealed carry from 90% to 100%.

    But that’s not the experiment I’d want to carry out. I’d want to put Democratic politicians into those neighborhoods. Minus their bodyguards of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @J.Ross
    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?

    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?

    It was surveillance video footage of flash-mob mass robbery suspects. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/bart-officials-withhold-crime-surveillance-tapes-for-fear-racial-stereotyping-memo-shows.html)

    In the near future, I wouldn’t be surprised if things like descriptions of criminal suspects or racial statistics on criminal offending or IQ are treated in the same way hydrogen bomb designs or the identity of secret agents are today: state secrets to be trusted only to those with a need to know, and not for mass consumption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    As long as nervous cops continue pumping massive lead into unarmed Black guys who just happen to be in the wrong place during dark, early morning hours, thinking people will understand the real safe/unsafe issue, and it's not self-driving cars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Thomas
    You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter's CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don't need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain, or other sundry topics that might worry your pretty little head?

    That already happened. In 1946. The New York Times declared it would no longer be publishing the race of criminals unless ‘relevant’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Mishra
    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but in just two generations these once-august institutions have turned very nearly into the opposite of all that. Now they resemble nothing so much as cushy versions of Cultural Revolution training camps, where apostates are shunned and ruined, and mind-control techniques and groupthink would rule the day--except that they're no longer really needed.

    One thing about the Long March Through the Institutions is that the Institutions are ruined in the process. And it's worth repeating: Every single thing worthwhile about American society is being wrecked. It's not accidental. None of it is accidental.

    https://image.ibb.co/gN3Nnx/YALE_Branford_College.jpg

    Sorry, that is BS. The colleges have always been a place to learn the state creed- blank slatism came from the universities before spreading to the media. They have always been places where professors have competed to have as worthless and detached from reality views as possible to show how much better they are then the proles.

    The difference is that over time the status signaling has taken up more and more of their time and effort until now where it has displaced nearly all other activities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Imagine you are:
    a) black, or
    b) a white parent

    I think greater statistical significance.

    Show me dem Gibsmedats!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Anonymous
    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that's useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar "faces," but please consider what's at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you're at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    I tend to agree even though I don’t use the anonymous approach, (which I may regret one day).

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments. Ron’s Rules countenanced anonymous comments so long as you did them his way, which I believe anonymous commenters did, but the rules didn’t mention that after leaving a string of anonymous comments, they could be retroactively strung together in a potentially revealing way. I think that was a little deceptive, and it somewhat lowers my otherwise very high opinion of Mr. Unz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Do you want go see a commenter named Almost-Missouri talk about killing Jews? Want to answer commenters who think that's you? We just got attacked by CTRs, using the handles of regulars, but modifying them with a small punctuation mark (which the system sees as a totally different name). The Deep State thinks it's winning and we will see more attacks.
    , @International Jew
    Not just that, but Ron's method for associating one handle to another is just flat-out wrong. He looks at the IP address. That means everyone on the same local area network (LAN) will look like the same person to him. (The way most LANs are set up nowadays, that is — with NAT and DHCP-assigned local addresses.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous[237] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that's useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar "faces," but please consider what's at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you're at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    Ron decided that he would concatenate people’s nicks probably based on IP Addresses. He may not have figured that some addresses might have more than one person, through the magic of IPv4 address translation, and that some individuals might post from various IP Addresses from time to time, such as people that often use public wifi.

    So it appeared that certain people were having, in effect, conversations with themselves.

    Therefore some of us, such as myself decided to just go with Anonymous and certain others have decided to desist from posting entirely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Almost Missouri
    I tend to agree even though I don't use the anonymous approach, (which I may regret one day).

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments. Ron's Rules countenanced anonymous comments so long as you did them his way, which I believe anonymous commenters did, but the rules didn't mention that after leaving a string of anonymous comments, they could be retroactively strung together in a potentially revealing way. I think that was a little deceptive, and it somewhat lowers my otherwise very high opinion of Mr. Unz.

    Do you want go see a commenter named Almost-Missouri talk about killing Jews? Want to answer commenters who think that’s you? We just got attacked by CTRs, using the handles of regulars, but modifying them with a small punctuation mark (which the system sees as a totally different name). The Deep State thinks it’s winning and we will see more attacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    No obviously, I don't want false opinions attributed to me, but what has that got to do with retroactively subtagging anonymous commenters?

    I haven't noticed anyone falling for the old trick of masquerading via slightly adjusted names. But if it were a problem, the solution is adjusting the identification criteria for named commenters, not unnamed ones.

    BTW, much as I would be flattered by Deep State ops targeting me, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't bother spoofing me into disapproving glares from SJWs, they would just unmask my automatically gathered comms, same as they did with Prez Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    An intelligent and clearly spoken man, whose sincerity comes through. I looked up both Joe Sobran and Brian Lamb, and curiously, Sobran was Lamb’s junior by only four years. Lamb looks almost a generation older in that video.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    The 'older' look is largely, I think, caused by the natural loss of colour that comes with age. A light tan can help.

    Of course being fit also helps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    Buckley’s name should only ever be pronounced Cuckley. Speaking of Cuckley and the zionist lobby, Gore Vidal wrote some great essays taking on the neocon crowd and easily and amusingly got the best of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Vidal had his own eccentricities and peccadilloes but when it came to political essays he displayed rare courage. He wasn't afraid of much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @J.Ross
    Do you want go see a commenter named Almost-Missouri talk about killing Jews? Want to answer commenters who think that's you? We just got attacked by CTRs, using the handles of regulars, but modifying them with a small punctuation mark (which the system sees as a totally different name). The Deep State thinks it's winning and we will see more attacks.

    No obviously, I don’t want false opinions attributed to me, but what has that got to do with retroactively subtagging anonymous commenters?

    I haven’t noticed anyone falling for the old trick of masquerading via slightly adjusted names. But if it were a problem, the solution is adjusting the identification criteria for named commenters, not unnamed ones.

    BTW, much as I would be flattered by Deep State ops targeting me, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t bother spoofing me into disapproving glares from SJWs, they would just unmask my automatically gathered comms, same as they did with Prez Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    First of all, if you get punched by a weakling, it's not okay to pankraton out his eyes, but neither is it okay that he tried to punch you. And he might have just been skirmishing in preparation for a more serious attack.
    Second of all, congratulations on being somebody who can recognize differences in commenters, you are now disqualified to work for the FBI and the ADL/SPLC. I know a guy in England who was thrown out of school because pranksters convinced his main professor/advisor that he was a raving anti-Semite using blatantly uncharateristic electronic messages.
    Third of all, the most common goal of CTRs is not anything more than degrading the quality of a site so regulars leave or cannot accomplish communication and organization ("Martians Go Home").
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Doesn’t this study imply that opposition to mass immigration is not out of prejudice but rational concerns about safety?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Thomas

    Was it the BART that refused to publicize crime data on the grounds that it would encourage bigotry?
     
    It was surveillance video footage of flash-mob mass robbery suspects. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/bart-officials-withhold-crime-surveillance-tapes-for-fear-racial-stereotyping-memo-shows.html)

    In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if things like descriptions of criminal suspects or racial statistics on criminal offending or IQ are treated in the same way hydrogen bomb designs or the identity of secret agents are today: state secrets to be trusted only to those with a need to know, and not for mass consumption.

    As long as nervous cops continue pumping massive lead into unarmed Black guys who just happen to be in the wrong place during dark, early morning hours, thinking people will understand the real safe/unsafe issue, and it’s not self-driving cars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. This study is embarrassingly meaningless. There are an infinite number of ways to play “Let’s pretend.” I can play “Let’s pretend” right now. I imagine I am independently wealthy. Poof! I just retired from my job, bought a beautiful private retreat for my home, and became an international jetsetter with more kindly views toward humanity, including some of my co-workers who I currently don’t hold in too high esteem, since I no longer have to deal with them. Instant liberal!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @inertial
    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    Cocks may become capons but not capons cocks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    It’s a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    I see it as more of a time capsule, Mr. Gryce.

    It was amazing how calm and erudite the callers were, from all over, New Mexico, Mississippi, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon (then by some point a Lebanese immigrant, Christian, guy, living in Gainsville, Florida, started off on the politics and I tuned out at that point thinking “why do I need to hear from this guy?” The rest were Americans and those are the people I wanted to hear from.)

    If you listen at just after 29 minutes in, you can hear the Portland guy make an even better explanation of the term “ad hominem” then Mr. Sobran did. Again, the people were very erudite.(Maybe non-erudite people back then felt they shouldn’t be the ones to call into these shows.). Oh, they were going to talk about the new Justice Scalia in an upcoming show – man, this was 1986!

    Thanks for putting this time capsule up here. I guess youtube has lots of time capsules, if you have time for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    Yes, I noticed that about the callers and remarked on it to Mrs. Gryce. It's impossible to imagine a similar set of calls today.

    P.S.: You say "time capsule," I say "message in a bottle." Tomayto, tomahto.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_in_a_bottle#Similar_methods_using_other_media
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Vinay
    This seems awfully silly. Why not ask another group to imagine they’re stuck in Eastern Ghouta or something? Or, more mundanely, imagine you’re just laid off. Presto, instant Republicans!

    It’d be about as trite and meaningless.

    The liberal professor Brett Weinstein of Evergreen college explained how nice the right was to him after he and his wife were chased off campus by the left. So I think you are onto something with getting laid off. Losing a job shakes the very foundation of your daily life even more than a mugging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Harry Baldwin
    Mugging doesn't do the trick anymore, as Matt Yglesias demonstrated. In fact, getting assaulted by one of their favorite minorities provides a valuable opportunity for the liberal to prove his bona fides: "I got brutally beaten by blacks and you know what? I still love black people more than white right-wingers, so there!"

    (With apologies to Irving Kristol)

    Conservative is a liberal who had been mugged by reality. An SJW is a liberal who had been mugged by reality and didn’t press charges.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Calling John Lennon

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @Anon7
    There’s a better way, thanks to science:

    A joint team of American and British scientists have discovered that powerful magnetic pulses to the brain can temporarily change people's feelings on a variety of subjects - from their belief in God, to their attitude to immigration.

    The study, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, saw scientists use a metal coil to create strong magnetic fields around certain parts of the brain.

    The non-invasive practice is called trancranial magnetic stimulation, and has can be used to treat depression.

    However, researchers have now found that by targeting the part of the brain that deals with threats, they can temporarily change people's beliefs and views.

    Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds

     

    Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds

    So liberals are basically conservatives with disabled brains. Verified by Science at last.

    Read More
    • LOL: Forbes, bomag
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
    They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
    They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. To compare small things to even smaller ones: In my youth there was a Superman comic in which the title character becomes the U.S. President (it was a “dream”-type story, with a plot point that got around Superman’s naturalized citizen status). A friend, knowing my conservative character, chided me that as President, Superman mostly effected the dreams of the Liberal state, thereby “proving” that Liberalism (i.e. “Progressivism”) is the true, just, American Way.

    I replied, to the contrary, that at the deepest level the story was subversive of the Liberal state, because it showed that Liberal dreams could only be effected if granted an *impossible* premise: the existence of an invincible, all-wise, and incorruptible individual. I added that such a belief was no different from that of a Christian millenarian. (That was twisting the knife, admittedly.)

    Sensing a “teachable moment,” I said that it’s precisely the *absence* of the possibility for godlike governance here on Planet Earth that informs conservative politics—and that this was explicitly noted by the Founders. I proceed to quote Federalist 51’s great passage, “If men were angels…”—an anticipatory rebuke to the Liberal dream of government by Superman.

    Flash forward 25 years and such comic-book dreams are now the province of “social scientists” at Yale. It’s pathetic, really. But my friend didn’t learn, either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Executive summary:

    Conservatism is the political ideology of those who have been mugged by reality. Liberalism of those who have not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. @Almost Missouri
    I tend to agree even though I don't use the anonymous approach, (which I may regret one day).

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments. Ron's Rules countenanced anonymous comments so long as you did them his way, which I believe anonymous commenters did, but the rules didn't mention that after leaving a string of anonymous comments, they could be retroactively strung together in a potentially revealing way. I think that was a little deceptive, and it somewhat lowers my otherwise very high opinion of Mr. Unz.

    Not just that, but Ron’s method for associating one handle to another is just flat-out wrong. He looks at the IP address. That means everyone on the same local area network (LAN) will look like the same person to him. (The way most LANs are set up nowadays, that is — with NAT and DHCP-assigned local addresses.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Harry Baldwin
    Mugging doesn't do the trick anymore, as Matt Yglesias demonstrated. In fact, getting assaulted by one of their favorite minorities provides a valuable opportunity for the liberal to prove his bona fides: "I got brutally beaten by blacks and you know what? I still love black people more than white right-wingers, so there!"

    It’s sad, but you’re right. A left-wing friend in college was robbed at gunpoint by a black thug and he blamed it on society. Didn’t even report it to the police.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Anonymous
    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that's useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar "faces," but please consider what's at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you're at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    You can thwart Ron’s tracking system easily:

    1. Use incognito windows (Chrome) or private tabs (Firefox). That will defeat any cookie-based system. (Surprisingly, Ron didn’t use cookies last time I checked, but he may start using them, and it’s not always clear where any particular cookie on your system comes from (and you probably have thousands of them).)

    2. Comment from a mobile phone and go on 4g (ie your phone company) rather than Wifi. You’ll typically get assigned a new IP address every time you reboot in the morning. (In fact, I get assigned a new IP address every time I toggle Airplane Mode.) On Android, you can check your IP address by going to Settings/AboutPhone/Status. (Dunno about iPhone.) Or use Wifi, but visit lots of different Starbucks!

    By the way, this is how you deal with getting banned by Disqus (and of course you need to get a new Disqus handle too).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He also hasn't blocked major commercial VPNs -- I posted via Kenya yesterday.

    Nor has be downloaded the Tor exit nodes list to block ... this is posted from Tor Browser Bundle (tunneled through a VPN in Israel).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Mishra
    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but in just two generations these once-august institutions have turned very nearly into the opposite of all that. Now they resemble nothing so much as cushy versions of Cultural Revolution training camps, where apostates are shunned and ruined, and mind-control techniques and groupthink would rule the day--except that they're no longer really needed.

    One thing about the Long March Through the Institutions is that the Institutions are ruined in the process. And it's worth repeating: Every single thing worthwhile about American society is being wrecked. It's not accidental. None of it is accidental.

    https://image.ibb.co/gN3Nnx/YALE_Branford_College.jpg

    “Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them.”

    Are we sure this is true? My guess is they went from being rich white boys’ clubs to rich liberals’ clubs. They’ve always been the rich clubs and are mostly about maintaining status. God bless any students that ever actually learned anything useful in those places.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Let us pause.

    Israel tortures suspected terrorists. W. wins presidency and Neo-Cons decide America should torture suspected terrorists.

    Israel builds a Wall to keep out Africans. Trump wins and promises to build a Wall to keep out Mexicans.

    Israeli politics continues to grow more and more extreme, and every new controversial policy gets recycled into American domestic politics. Its not much different from Jewish doctors favoring circumcision. Israel doesn’t want to be the only nation-state that looks like that.

    It is clear that America needs a domestic enemy like the Palestinians in order to preserve its kismet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. I’m sure this study is very replicatable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    You can thwart Ron's tracking system easily:

    1. Use incognito windows (Chrome) or private tabs (Firefox). That will defeat any cookie-based system. (Surprisingly, Ron didn't use cookies last time I checked, but he may start using them, and it's not always clear where any particular cookie on your system comes from (and you probably have thousands of them).)

    2. Comment from a mobile phone and go on 4g (ie your phone company) rather than Wifi. You'll typically get assigned a new IP address every time you reboot in the morning. (In fact, I get assigned a new IP address every time I toggle Airplane Mode.) On Android, you can check your IP address by going to Settings/AboutPhone/Status. (Dunno about iPhone.) Or use Wifi, but visit lots of different Starbucks!

    By the way, this is how you deal with getting banned by Disqus (and of course you need to get a new Disqus handle too).

    He also hasn’t blocked major commercial VPNs — I posted via Kenya yesterday.

    Nor has be downloaded the Tor exit nodes list to block … this is posted from Tor Browser Bundle (tunneled through a VPN in Israel).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Fabulous! Well noticed. Of course, we must all close our eyes and imagine that this new society we find ourselves in, is safe and friendly and based on high trust and reasoned arguments. But be careful crossing the road.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @Anonymous
    ...As opposed to looking at reality and being a concerned Conservative. Liberals do like to live in fantasies, sounds about right.

    …As opposed to looking at reality and being a concerned Conservative. Liberals do like to live in fantasies, sounds about right.

    This is absolutely the case.

    Jonathan Haidt has done this work which basically shows that conservatives are better balanced across a bunch of his “moral foundations” while progressives have pretty much turned off all but the “this is unfair!” and “they’d be hurt by that!” ones.

    But i think it goes beyond this. Beyond conservatives–actually ones not the beltway ones–wanting to actually conserve stuff, what i see is that conservatives are simply more *realistic* about the world. Might not have been true in some earlier times, but these days the conservative is the skeptical realist.

    One thing that made me “conservative” in the political sense, is that progressives (liberal is the wrong world) always seem to “get the incentives wrong”. Not occasionally but really pretty much always get them wrong. Their modus operandi is to create some policy or spend some money on some program to ameliorate some “unfairness” or prevent someone from being “hurt”. But they seem positively incapable of thinking whether the policy’s long term consequences are positive. In many cases it’s obvious to the logical thinker than even their policy’s short term consequences will be negative. The incentives it produces are obviously negative.

    Beyond my natural inclinations, i’m just too much of logical thinking to be “progressive”. Doing stupid stuff in order to “be nice” simply doesn’t appeal to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Yes. Also, fear — when it's fear of anything other than an immediate threat — reflects some capacity for thinking ahead.

    For example, if I knew my next-door neighbor rented his house to a lower-class black woman and her toddlers, I'd think ahead to what her sons will be like in fourteen years, and what kind of boyfriends might come calling on her (and before long, her daughters). That's fear.

    If I were a typical liberal/progressive, all I'd see is that her toddlers are cute right now. That's no fear.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Can we do this for liberals who see a KKK member with an AR-15 under their beds at night and yammer on about man-made climate change? Because when it comes to being ascared of bogeymen, no one outdoes the contemporary liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @Anonymous
    So now Ron is tracking and tagging anonymous comments? I guess that's useful for readers to be able to follow who is who in a continuing conversation. But it misunderstands one of the reasons for using Anonymous.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar "faces," but please consider what's at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    And while you're at it, please add the Internet Archive robot to your robots.txt disallowed section. This will not affect Google ranking, but will prevent mischief by people at Amazon who disagree with the stuff discussed here.

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.

    I get this. I’ve said enough that anyone who wanted to could easily track me down and out me as an evil thinker–i.e. someone who believes their eyes. I’m retired so unless they are allowed to seize my retirement nest egg, the defenestration would be pretty minor. (They aren’t going to get AnotherMom to toss me out.) But other folks may be in more perilous circumstances.

    However, if you just pick a handle for one particular thread–JoeBob427 for your comments on Chetty–that’s helpful for the rest of us reading/responding to the arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Picking one handle per thread is an interesting proposition.
    For the more paranoid among us, I mean.
    We need to do more thinking about this.
    Thanks for your suggestion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. * “an online survey”: i.e., a survey of self-selected participants. What would be much more interesting would be a survey of people who refuse to take part in online surveys. What do such people have in common?

    * “Thirty-percent of the participants self-identified as Republican, and the rest as Democrat.”: All non-Republicans were Democrats? Not one unaffiliated independent among 300 people?

    * “For half of our participants, this superpower was to be able to fly, under one’s own power. For the other half, it was to be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm.” These two superpowers are nowhere near comparable. Invulnerability, besides conferring immortality, allows many conveniences: You can quickly get to the street from your 10th-floor apartment — just jump out the window (but in the other direction you’ll still have to take the elevator or trudge up the stairs). You can live at the bottom of the sea for years at a time. Eating and drinking are no longer necessary, because you can’t be harmed by lack of food and water.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @AnotherDad

    …As opposed to looking at reality and being a concerned Conservative. Liberals do like to live in fantasies, sounds about right.
     
    This is absolutely the case.

    Jonathan Haidt has done this work which basically shows that conservatives are better balanced across a bunch of his "moral foundations" while progressives have pretty much turned off all but the "this is unfair!" and "they'd be hurt by that!" ones.

    But i think it goes beyond this. Beyond conservatives--actually ones not the beltway ones--wanting to actually conserve stuff, what i see is that conservatives are simply more *realistic* about the world. Might not have been true in some earlier times, but these days the conservative is the skeptical realist.

    One thing that made me "conservative" in the political sense, is that progressives (liberal is the wrong world) always seem to "get the incentives wrong". Not occasionally but really pretty much always get them wrong. Their modus operandi is to create some policy or spend some money on some program to ameliorate some "unfairness" or prevent someone from being "hurt". But they seem positively incapable of thinking whether the policy's long term consequences are positive. In many cases it's obvious to the logical thinker than even their policy's short term consequences will be negative. The incentives it produces are obviously negative.

    Beyond my natural inclinations, i'm just too much of logical thinking to be "progressive". Doing stupid stuff in order to "be nice" simply doesn't appeal to me.

    Yes. Also, fear — when it’s fear of anything other than an immediate threat — reflects some capacity for thinking ahead.

    For example, if I knew my next-door neighbor rented his house to a lower-class black woman and her toddlers, I’d think ahead to what her sons will be like in fourteen years, and what kind of boyfriends might come calling on her (and before long, her daughters). That’s fear.

    If I were a typical liberal/progressive, all I’d see is that her toddlers are cute right now. That’s no fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKHoI9z_RO4

    All it means is that they're too goddamned dumb to be afraid.

    Yet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. I remember reading in the ’80s about a polling organization axing if a peep had always been left or right. 40% of the conservatives admitting starting out as a rat bastard lefty, but only 20% of the rat bastard leftys had started out conservative.

    I was 12 when I become a conservative, no rat bastard lefty phase for me!

    But I hadn’t been dipped in rat bastard leftyism at school and by the entire media from birth, like the last 30 years, so it was easier. Today it takes great personal strength to resist, which most don’t have. They just want to get along.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @inertial
    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    (Mugging, I suppose.)

    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?

    Reality seems to work. Age and experience usually does it. People tend to be most conservative with what they best know. No imagination necessary, really.

    Only a lefty could conjure up an experiment utilizing test subjects’ fantasy and imagination, and consider the results as proof of some hypothesis. Life is hard, life is unfair. Once you suspend reality, anything is possible experimentally.

    This appears proof, though, of confirmation bias, using incomplete information to confirm one’s belief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It also connects to that set of research (like evaluating a woman's beauty after crossing a rope bridge) that clearly is meant to argue that uncredentialed hicks cannot evaluate or know any facts, that all our judgments are actually emotional reactions to whatever happened to us thirty seconds ago. These are the people who want to throw around the term "fake news."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. > turn conservatives into liberals

    they’re beginning to understand that Trump’s base is bigger than they ever realized. So they are investigating ways to fix that problem

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Trump is taking care of that all by himself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Thomas
    You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter's CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don't need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain, or other sundry topics that might worry your pretty little head?

    Well, the lapdog, ankle-biting media needs its clicks and eyeballs, and they’re doing it by reporting every little local gun crime and any other outrage used to underwrite The Narrative. Whether it’s the US web-based version of The Daily Mail, or many other outlets, the news is out there.

    Now it’s true that I don’t “need to know” many of the things you mention–I ignore most of the legacy media. But the reality of MS-13 or the opiod crisis and most other realities are very much a local matter not subject to the vicissitudes of Twitter or Facebook policies.

    Meanwhile, the theory you suggest would serve to further separate the coastals from the continentals. Which doesn’t strike me as good politics…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @anon
    To push this analysis a little bit further...

    I don't remember an election, or even a time, when there has been so much blatant fear-mongering on the liberal side. Fear of hate crimes, fear of being run over a car when you were innocently blocking traffic, fear of an impending Nazi takeover.

    If you think about it, the difference between liberals and conservatives could just be that liberals are afraid of white things, while conservatives are afraid of non-white things.

    Welp. Only one way to settle which group is right. Which group is more likely to commit actual acts of violence? Whites or non-whites? Are Muslim immigrants or white Europeans more likely to cause problems to the European populace?

    The 1970s were filled with thousands of bombings, and there was never blatant fear-mongering as today. Read Bryan Burroughs Days of Rage if you need a primer.

    Black Power groups, Puerto Rican (Hispanic) separatists, left-wing anarchists and anti-government types, including a succession of bank robberies and other heists to fund their activities. Except for the bank robberies, and bombings, it all sounds familiar–except people weren’t shrieking about it from the roof tops.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Almost Missouri
    No obviously, I don't want false opinions attributed to me, but what has that got to do with retroactively subtagging anonymous commenters?

    I haven't noticed anyone falling for the old trick of masquerading via slightly adjusted names. But if it were a problem, the solution is adjusting the identification criteria for named commenters, not unnamed ones.

    BTW, much as I would be flattered by Deep State ops targeting me, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't bother spoofing me into disapproving glares from SJWs, they would just unmask my automatically gathered comms, same as they did with Prez Trump.

    First of all, if you get punched by a weakling, it’s not okay to pankraton out his eyes, but neither is it okay that he tried to punch you. And he might have just been skirmishing in preparation for a more serious attack.
    Second of all, congratulations on being somebody who can recognize differences in commenters, you are now disqualified to work for the FBI and the ADL/SPLC. I know a guy in England who was thrown out of school because pranksters convinced his main professor/advisor that he was a raving anti-Semite using blatantly uncharateristic electronic messages.
    Third of all, the most common goal of CTRs is not anything more than degrading the quality of a site so regulars leave or cannot accomplish communication and organization (“Martians Go Home”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Okay, fair enough on all three points.

    But I still don't see the connection to subtagging anonymous commenters.

    Also, what are "CTRs"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Forbes

    Can you imagine Yale conducting the opposite experiment, how to make a conservative out of liberal?
     
    Reality seems to work. Age and experience usually does it. People tend to be most conservative with what they best know. No imagination necessary, really.

    Only a lefty could conjure up an experiment utilizing test subjects' fantasy and imagination, and consider the results as proof of some hypothesis. Life is hard, life is unfair. Once you suspend reality, anything is possible experimentally.

    This appears proof, though, of confirmation bias, using incomplete information to confirm one's belief.

    It also connects to that set of research (like evaluating a woman’s beauty after crossing a rope bridge) that clearly is meant to argue that uncredentialed hicks cannot evaluate or know any facts, that all our judgments are actually emotional reactions to whatever happened to us thirty seconds ago. These are the people who want to throw around the term “fake news.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Harry Baldwin
    Mugging doesn't do the trick anymore, as Matt Yglesias demonstrated. In fact, getting assaulted by one of their favorite minorities provides a valuable opportunity for the liberal to prove his bona fides: "I got brutally beaten by blacks and you know what? I still love black people more than white right-wingers, so there!"
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. This is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
    And I bet she would mock Christians who believe that God will protect them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. It’s just like being a White liberal in northern Vermont who feel completely safe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @JollyOldSoul
    "You laugh and mock, but how long do you really think it is before the Zucc, Susan Wojcicki, Jack Dorsey (Twitter’s CEO), and Jeff Bezos take these studies to heart and decide you don’t need to know about, say, crime news (or the wrong kind of crime news), or about grooming gangs and acid attacks in Britain"

    Ummm, it seems to me they've already decided that. I'd wager not even 5% of Americans have heard of what happened in Rotherham or Telford. 80% of those who have probably haven't seen more than one story or news article.

    What happened in Rotherham and Telford is horrible, a scandal of gigantic proportions–but it’s a UK scandal, not a US scandal. The US scandal is, perhaps, of different proportions.

    The US didn’t colonize countries with Muslims–or rule over populations of Muslims in Empire. Yet we’re admitting Muslims, and others, who have no formal relationship or political, ethnic, or cultural bonds with the US. A different insanity, I think, better served by covering what’s happening here, rather than looking across the ocean and concluding “it couldn’t happen here.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Silly proposal.

    The subjects were told to imagine:

    1) “immigration” as if it were to be carried out is such a way that the subject were to “be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm” resulting thereby i.e. no jobs lost or wages lowered, no increased criminality or taxes raised to support social safety net for aliens etc.

    2) “gay rights” as if it were to be carried out is such a way that the subject were to “be completely physically safe, invulnerable to any harm” resulting thereby including death from AIDS, likelihood of being the defender in a lawsuit because they wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay couple etc.

    and so on.

    So, imagine all these potentially bad things stripped of their ability to make your life bad, now how do you feel about them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. reply to comment 83 Anonymous
    Tor exit nodes are not the only area of concern.
    Tor entry nodes may be monitored by the server providers who also may be in position to know of ISP traffic.
    Check on whois information for all you can learn.
    Many familiar and overlapping names. See implication below.
    Exact entry times are helpful but not required.
    Approximate times allow analysis to approximate who is doing something.
    Watch that process for some time period and patterns emerge.
    There is nothing random about it.
    Assume the walls have ears and so do the data pipes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. Huh. Those tested “conservatives” must be pretty apathetic. If granted complete invulnerability over a natural lifespan, one could be a hell of a vigilante and take out a lot of hard-target traitors one by one. Maintaining anonymity and avoiding capture would be key, of course.

    “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

    Just think how much sweet, sweet campus triggering you could do with a megaphone…

    Anyone who’s ever been through the “liberal when young, conservative when old” life cycle could have told them this, of course. One of the reasons young people tend to be more liberal is that they have no idea about the dangers in the wider world.

    The trick is how to keep people in indoctrination educational institutions throughout their lives. We’re working on it…

    The serious answer is to increase fear, for better or worse. Even fear of disease seems to increase conservative attitudes.

    True. The stereotype of the white guy always being the one to put his face right up to the opening alien egg is based in reality.

    On the other hand, red pills are like alien eggs, in a sense, so it works both ways…

    I understand the sentiment of wanting a big happy family with no trolls and familiar “faces,” but please consider what’s at stake to people frankly commenting on the controversial topics here and give us the option of not being tracked from comment to comment. If we must use trackable names, give us the ability to permanently delete or autodelete comments older than X weeks.

    A big happy family isn’t what consistent handles are about. They’re about holding people to account for their behavior, so their capacity for disinformation is diminished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @Mishra
    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech. They were places which challenged their students and faculties alike to achieve and to distinguish themselves by expanding the limits of knowledge. They were places where comportment and civility went hand in hand to create an environment conducive to the expansion of the mind. They were places which valued questions and the people who posed them.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but in just two generations these once-august institutions have turned very nearly into the opposite of all that. Now they resemble nothing so much as cushy versions of Cultural Revolution training camps, where apostates are shunned and ruined, and mind-control techniques and groupthink would rule the day--except that they're no longer really needed.

    One thing about the Long March Through the Institutions is that the Institutions are ruined in the process. And it's worth repeating: Every single thing worthwhile about American society is being wrecked. It's not accidental. None of it is accidental.

    https://image.ibb.co/gN3Nnx/YALE_Branford_College.jpg

    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech.

    That might be true of American Ivy League colleges but it’s not true of universities in general. The purpose of universities was originally to enforce religious orthodoxy. So modern universities do in fact fulfil the original purpose of universities.

    Freedom of speech is an anti-Christian Enlightenment concept.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Freedom of speech is an anti-Christian Enlightenment concept."
     
    Sorry, I have to disagree with this.

    The origins of English parliamentary privilege (the British version of Freedom of Speech) go back at least to 1512, which long predates the Enlightenment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strode%27s_case

    Arguably, its origins go all the way back to ancient Anglo-Saxon habits of speaking [F]rankly. (The proof is in the etymology of the adjective "frank".)

    The enshrinement of freedom of speech in the US Constitution does indeed date from Enlightenment times, but I would argue that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was not anti-Christian but pro-Christian, specifically to protect the various stripes of Christianity in the New World (Puritanism/Congregationalism in New England, Quakerism in Pennsylvania, Anglicanism + Baptists and Methodists in the South, Deism in Monticello, etc.) from interference by an overweening Federal government. So really, it was to protect the church from the state.

    I would agree that by the 1960s the main freedom-of-speech partisans were indeed anti-Christian, as their main objectives were to get obscenity, treason, pornography, defamation of public figures, etc. included into the legal concept of Freedom of Speech, which theretofore had not been. Having handily accomplished that goal, they promptly lost all interest in Freedom of Speech (except for their pet causes) and began introducing the new concept of Hate Speech (i.e., anything they disagree with). They are being pretty successful at that too, though certain very deplorable Americans are hanging onto outdated definitions of Freedom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.
     
    I see it as more of a time capsule, Mr. Gryce.

    It was amazing how calm and erudite the callers were, from all over, New Mexico, Mississippi, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon (then by some point a Lebanese immigrant, Christian, guy, living in Gainsville, Florida, started off on the politics and I tuned out at that point thinking "why do I need to hear from this guy?" The rest were Americans and those are the people I wanted to hear from.)

    If you listen at just after 29 minutes in, you can hear the Portland guy make an even better explanation of the term "ad hominem" then Mr. Sobran did. Again, the people were very erudite.(Maybe non-erudite people back then felt they shouldn't be the ones to call into these shows.). Oh, they were going to talk about the new Justice Scalia in an upcoming show - man, this was 1986!

    Thanks for putting this time capsule up here. I guess youtube has lots of time capsules, if you have time for them.

    Yes, I noticed that about the callers and remarked on it to Mrs. Gryce. It’s impossible to imagine a similar set of calls today.

    P.S.: You say “time capsule,” I say “message in a bottle.” Tomayto, tomahto.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_in_a_bottle#Similar_methods_using_other_media

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Gracebear
    Such a moving interview with the wonderful Joe Sobran, who came to such a tragic end. We miss him and his clarity of thought, and his courage. What a huge loss.

    I visited his grave site last year. Gone too soon. Oremus pro Josepho magno.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @AndrewR
    I have never seen a video of him. He seems to have been a very bright, gracious and honorable man, much unlike the cowardly, dishonorable Bill Buckley. Thank you for this.

    Here’re Sobran’s last thoughts on WFB Jr.:

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060530.shtml

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Thanks for this, Percy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    Yes. Also, fear — when it's fear of anything other than an immediate threat — reflects some capacity for thinking ahead.

    For example, if I knew my next-door neighbor rented his house to a lower-class black woman and her toddlers, I'd think ahead to what her sons will be like in fourteen years, and what kind of boyfriends might come calling on her (and before long, her daughters). That's fear.

    If I were a typical liberal/progressive, all I'd see is that her toddlers are cute right now. That's no fear.

    All it means is that they’re too goddamned dumb to be afraid.

    Yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Heh, other than Yoko Ono and Robert Deniro, I thought those were all just random, mostly down-and-out, people. What a surprise to see in the credits that they were all show business celebrities (at least, the names I recognized). So bottom line, these are people whose wealth, and perhaps the Malibu Police Department, insulates from the less pleasant aspects of their country getting invaded. For now, as you say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @J.Ross
    First of all, if you get punched by a weakling, it's not okay to pankraton out his eyes, but neither is it okay that he tried to punch you. And he might have just been skirmishing in preparation for a more serious attack.
    Second of all, congratulations on being somebody who can recognize differences in commenters, you are now disqualified to work for the FBI and the ADL/SPLC. I know a guy in England who was thrown out of school because pranksters convinced his main professor/advisor that he was a raving anti-Semite using blatantly uncharateristic electronic messages.
    Third of all, the most common goal of CTRs is not anything more than degrading the quality of a site so regulars leave or cannot accomplish communication and organization ("Martians Go Home").

    Okay, fair enough on all three points.

    But I still don’t see the connection to subtagging anonymous commenters.

    Also, what are “CTRs”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @dfordoom

    Ivy League colleges were once places which valued both the scientific method and freedom of speech.
     
    That might be true of American Ivy League colleges but it's not true of universities in general. The purpose of universities was originally to enforce religious orthodoxy. So modern universities do in fact fulfil the original purpose of universities.

    Freedom of speech is an anti-Christian Enlightenment concept.

    “Freedom of speech is an anti-Christian Enlightenment concept.”

    Sorry, I have to disagree with this.

    The origins of English parliamentary privilege (the British version of Freedom of Speech) go back at least to 1512, which long predates the Enlightenment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strode%27s_case

    Arguably, its origins go all the way back to ancient Anglo-Saxon habits of speaking [F]rankly. (The proof is in the etymology of the adjective “frank”.)

    The enshrinement of freedom of speech in the US Constitution does indeed date from Enlightenment times, but I would argue that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was not anti-Christian but pro-Christian, specifically to protect the various stripes of Christianity in the New World (Puritanism/Congregationalism in New England, Quakerism in Pennsylvania, Anglicanism + Baptists and Methodists in the South, Deism in Monticello, etc.) from interference by an overweening Federal government. So really, it was to protect the church from the state.

    I would agree that by the 1960s the main freedom-of-speech partisans were indeed anti-Christian, as their main objectives were to get obscenity, treason, pornography, defamation of public figures, etc. included into the legal concept of Freedom of Speech, which theretofore had not been. Having handily accomplished that goal, they promptly lost all interest in Freedom of Speech (except for their pet causes) and began introducing the new concept of Hate Speech (i.e., anything they disagree with). They are being pretty successful at that too, though certain very deplorable Americans are hanging onto outdated definitions of Freedom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @PiltdownMan
    An intelligent and clearly spoken man, whose sincerity comes through. I looked up both Joe Sobran and Brian Lamb, and curiously, Sobran was Lamb's junior by only four years. Lamb looks almost a generation older in that video.

    The ‘older’ look is largely, I think, caused by the natural loss of colour that comes with age. A light tan can help.

    Of course being fit also helps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @J.Ross
    For an undisclosed number of our participants, that superpower meant the unexplained Abrams-esque disappearance of one group of people (denoted "B"), the complete subjugation of another with thralls not considered a violation of monogamy ("J"), the sorting of a third with the least qualified two thirds sent back to their ancestral lands ("H"), the elevation of a fourth to equal status in empathy and creativity but lacking this people-organizing power ("A"), Korean-style internet, the reorganization of mass media, and the inauguration of a bloody purge of our academic, bureaucratic and legal institutions (Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe was kept alive and in position as a reminder).
    For seven it was unlimited breadsticks (always warm, you can control cheesiness and garlicity, but you cannot sell them for profit).
    And at least three opted for the Goat Tower. They were removed from the study.

    Are you ok, J?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKHoI9z_RO4

    All it means is that they're too goddamned dumb to be afraid.

    Yet.

    Heh, other than Yoko Ono and Robert Deniro, I thought those were all just random, mostly down-and-out, people. What a surprise to see in the credits that they were all show business celebrities (at least, the names I recognized). So bottom line, these are people whose wealth, and perhaps the Malibu Police Department, insulates from the less pleasant aspects of their country getting invaded. For now, as you say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Perhaps this study has inadvertently made an important discovery? The reason some people are Liberal is because they cannot spot or confront EXISTENTIAL THREATS when they see them. This cluelessness may be why they do not see the value in self-defense or realize that the cops they hate and despise will be the ONLY PEOPLE with guns under “Gun Control”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @Percy Gryce
    OT: I discovered a wonderful old interview of Joe Sobran by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN from 1986.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJG0X6V7irE

    It's a message in a bottle from an almost lost civilization.

    Longtime fan of print Sobran, so why had I not looked for videos? Glad you did. Enjoyed that one, and also many others on same channel. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Percy Gryce
    Here're Sobran's last thoughts on WFB Jr.:

    http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060530.shtml

    Thanks for this, Percy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mishra
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @AnotherDad

    If I simply do not want people to know who I am in a comment I can use a clever fake name. That is much more fun than using Anonymous. But if I use a fake name, then before long I have 100 or 500 comments, in which I have incrementally revealed, without really thinking about it, a tremendous amount of detail about my life. Years from now maybe I somehow get involved in some controversy that sends the Reddit aspies after me, they connect me up to one Unz comment, then they are able to connect me to a whole history, and perhaps I can be identified at that point and lose my job.
     
    I get this. I've said enough that anyone who wanted to could easily track me down and out me as an evil thinker--i.e. someone who believes their eyes. I'm retired so unless they are allowed to seize my retirement nest egg, the defenestration would be pretty minor. (They aren't going to get AnotherMom to toss me out.) But other folks may be in more perilous circumstances.

    However, if you just pick a handle for one particular thread--JoeBob427 for your comments on Chetty--that's helpful for the rest of us reading/responding to the arguments.

    Picking one handle per thread is an interesting proposition.
    For the more paranoid among us, I mean.
    We need to do more thinking about this.
    Thanks for your suggestion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Anonymous
    Worked out well for the Swedish liberals who waved in scores of 'refugees' with Welcome signs.

    Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: “Consider the ladies aboard the Titanic who waved off the dessert cart.” And frankly there are more than one parallel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Buckley's name should only ever be pronounced Cuckley. Speaking of Cuckley and the zionist lobby, Gore Vidal wrote some great essays taking on the neocon crowd and easily and amusingly got the best of them.

    Vidal had his own eccentricities and peccadilloes but when it came to political essays he displayed rare courage. He wasn’t afraid of much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Karl
    > turn conservatives into liberals

    they're beginning to understand that Trump's base is bigger than they ever realized. So they are investigating ways to fix that problem

    Trump is taking care of that all by himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. I’m leftvwondering if the people excoriating Mr. Unz here do regular business with Bezos, Weaselberg, Brin, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. @Meretricious
    professor of social psychology? LOL. We all know how "replicable" those studies are.

    This article by Sailer is silly. The left has already lost on immigration since wages for low skilled jobs are slightly increasing and folks in Orange County have went against Brown on protecting illegal immigrants that committed crimes. Basically, the left has lost on immigration and won somewhat on the gun issue since they used mess demonstrations on to get their way. Also, high income left wing cities have very high murder rates which works against the left in the long term. The left is going to use anti-trust laws against the tech giants which means places like San Jose, San Francisco, and Seattle will laid off thousands of workers. This money around for pro-immigration propaganda. The left is out in the next decade because they are basically with the gun law demonstrations going back to their old tricks that don’t worked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @AndrewR
    I have never seen a video of him. He seems to have been a very bright, gracious and honorable man, much unlike the cowardly, dishonorable Bill Buckley. Thank you for this.

    Sobran was a national treasure. Another great columnist from those days was Alan Stang.

    https://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alanA.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    You can have your comment history hidden.

    This would only disable the click-on-handle feature at Unz.com, wouldn’t it? It would not disable a [ site:unz.com "J.Ross says:" ] search on Google.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored